ICDS II — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section ICDS II, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
P.A. Jose v Union of India — ICDS II displaced LIFO from AY 2017-18, but opening and closing stock cannot be valued on two different methods
High CourtHelps taxpayer
ICDS II forced my client off LIFO in AY 2017-18 and the whole switching difference has been taxed in that one year. Is there any answer?
Yes, and the Kerala High Court has given it. It quashed the notices and directed the department either to accept the LIFO valuation of both opening and closing stock for AY 2017-18, or to permit the assessees to value their stocks by applying FIFO or weighted average cost — in other words, the same method must be applied to both ends of the year. What the court did not do is strike down the substituted s.145A or ICDS II.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
